Guest KANE Report post Posted July 2, 2003 Their reviewers are some of the most venomous I've ever seen. I admire their style, frankly. "Metallica St. Anger (Elektra) Metallica has encountered all sorts of roadblocks, distractions, and bad karma in the last few years, with troubles encompassing a high-profile dispute with Napster and its users, the departure of bassist Jason Newsted, and a stint in rehab for singer James Hetfield. So it's small wonder that the long-awaited St. Anger delves into themes of frustration, pain, and (naturally) anger, with a raw sound to match the visceral emotions in play. But "raw" is often just a gentle way of saying "badly produced," and St. Anger suffers mightily for its thin, washed-out sound. Lars Ulrich's tinny drums frequently sound like garbage cans being struck in the next studio over, the guitars almost invariably get mashed into a grubby paste, and Hetfield's vocals—hardly the crown jewel of the Metallica sound, especially after decades of full-throttle use—are maxed out for all the world to hear. The frontman's post-rehab navel-gazing doesn't help, nor do rote lines like "Invisible kid / never see what he did / got stuck where he hid / fallin' through the grid." More troubling is that St. Anger doesn't really deliver on the promise of its core concept: For the most part, it's about coming to terms with and embracing anger, but it never illustrates that process in a cathartic or disciplined way. Instead, the album's sprawling, rumbling raggedness manifests itself as monotonous mid-tempo indulgence, with songs that whomp along aimlessly for seven or eight minutes without momentum or purpose. In light of its controversial stance against file-sharing, Metallica earns points for including a pass-code to access bonus content online, not to mention a full-length DVD documenting St. Anger's rehearsal sessions. But that generosity doesn't seem to have extended to the album's production budget, and the result is a messy, unsatisfying misfire. —Stephen Thompson" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Narcoleptic Jumper Report post Posted July 2, 2003 Good review. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest redbaron51 Report post Posted July 2, 2003 I've never taken The Onion seriously, therefore, this nullifies it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest KANE Report post Posted July 2, 2003 The Onion itself is a humor publication, that's true. But the Onion A.V. Club has serious movie/music reviews. I think the reviewers' writing styles for that publication are really well done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Black Lushus Report post Posted July 2, 2003 I do agree with the line that they quoted from "Invisible Kid", worst set of lyrics I've ever heard... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted July 2, 2003 Geez I must be the only one who likes "Invisible Kid" I don't get it. What's so bad about the words? They're not the best ever, but they're far from the worst I've ever heard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JaKyL25 Report post Posted July 3, 2003 Anyone read Pitchforkmedia.com's review? Some hilariously scathing remarks there as well. Possibly my second favorite set of elitists on the 'net, after TSM, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted July 3, 2003 monotonous mid-tempo indulgence, with songs that whomp along aimlessly for seven or eight minutes without momentum or purpose This is the best description of metallica that I have ever seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest saturnmark4life Report post Posted July 3, 2003 "Invisible kid / never see what he did / got stuck where he hid / fallin' through the grid." Oh.....My.....God. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CoreyLazarus416 Report post Posted July 3, 2003 Dead-on review. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest redbaron51 Report post Posted July 3, 2003 this is a review??? more of a statement, than a review Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anorak Report post Posted July 3, 2003 Anyone read Pitchforkmedia.com's review? Some hilariously scathing remarks there as well. Possibly my second favorite set of elitists on the 'net, after TSM, of course. I hate pitchfork, its just the American online edition of the NME to me with all the same problems. Allmusic.com is 1000 times better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JaKyL25 Report post Posted July 4, 2003 Enlighten my ignorant ass, what's the NME? Basically I just like Pitchfork because it's usually so outlandish in its bashing of what I like. I have no idea how to judge whether or not music is good or not (seriously, it's like painting, I just don't understand it), but I just know what I like. These people make it appear as though they have a supreme understanding of the subject, far greater than any other reviewers I've ever come across in my (admittedly limited) travels into the world of music criticism. It's kinda like how 3 or 4 years ago I had absolutely no way of distinguishing a **1/2 match from a **** match, and required SK's rants to tell me. Though I doubt I'll ever be able to dissect music and still enjoy it the way I can a wrestling match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest saturnmark4life Report post Posted July 4, 2003 NME is the New Musical Express, which is a music mag/website based in the UK, and I believe created the singles chart in some form. It is for twats, by twats, and full of twats. But they liked AWK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anorak Report post Posted July 4, 2003 Enlighten my ignorant ass, what's the NME? Basically I just like Pitchfork because it's usually so outlandish in its bashing of what I like. I have no idea how to judge whether or not music is good or not (seriously, it's like painting, I just don't understand it), but I just know what I like. These people make it appear as though they have a supreme understanding of the subject, far greater than any other reviewers I've ever come across in my (admittedly limited) travels into the world of music criticism. It's kinda like how 3 or 4 years ago I had absolutely no way of distinguishing a **1/2 match from a **** match, and required SK's rants to tell me. Though I doubt I'll ever be able to dissect music and still enjoy it the way I can a wrestling match. Nearly everybody who reviews albums for Pitchfork is a walking cliche of the tiresome indie rock dullard. Its the style of writing that gives them away every time. Instead of reviewing an album in an insightful and unfussy manner you often have to wade through a good couple of paragraphs where they either ramble tediously about some vague philosophical topic that they think makes an wacky lead in, make bad jokes/ironic statements and top it off with a couple of semi-obscure musical references to establish that are indeed a true 'expert critic'. Any artist that falls off their own particular radar of general taste/fashion is gauranteed a pasting. In its current sad state the NME basically falls into the same trap a lot and they're much worse for overhyping bands to a ridiculous degree. I do value many particular sources for music reviews but at the end of the day I agree you can't dissect music like you can when comparing wrestling matches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JaKyL25 Report post Posted July 5, 2003 My general opinion on music reviews is that if critics routinely pimp something I've never heard (i.e. Wilco), I'll definitely give it a try. If critics routinely pimp something I've already decided I don't like (i.e. Dave Matthews Band), I'll at least give it another try and try to see what they see in it. If critics routinely bash something I already like (can't think of an example at the moment), then fuck 'em. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheGregWitul Report post Posted July 5, 2003 Look at the archives on pitchfork and search for the review for 'Pet Sounds', by The Beach Boys. The 'Editor In Chief', Ryan S. wrote the review, and gave it like a 6.5 or 7.5, and the review itself was terribly written. I don't mind the site for some news updates and certain reviews and lists (Although the NME usually has the news they post a week in advance, for some topics) but I can't stomach some of their pompous reviews for certain albums (Although I found it funny that they gave the new Liz Phair album a zero). If you can't spot the genius that is Pet Sounds, you either don't know your music, or you have your head so far up anything involving 'indie', that it just can't see the light... j. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Edwin MacPhisto Report post Posted July 5, 2003 Pitchfork is often retarded. They sometimes do really ridiculous things--like the Pet Sounds review, the whole conceit of which is "Well, I like music I've heard that came out since then better--this has nothing on My Bloody Valentine!" A lot of times they give incredibly high ratings to albums that are largely composed of shitty field music and audio samples. They're too often trying to find something revolutionary in a product that really isn't. And a lot of the writing does fall into that pattern that Anorak pointed out--too much of the review is spent asserting "I know all about the music and history of this artist that came before this that relates to this very album and thus I am a valid reviewer of this album," when I'd much rather they just talk about the fricking songs. Now, that said, I still go to Pitchfork almost every day. The reviews of things like the new Metallica, Liz Phair, and other things in that ilk are generally hilarious, and for however flawed their method may be, I find that I more often than not agree with at least the numerical rating they give an album. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
